Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chris Moore]

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 01:13

People who have never read an actual statute in their whole life are reading commentary from ISP shills who have never read an actual statute in their whole life but are now suddenly experts on constitutional law. The very few who have actually read some bit of this particular proposed legislation might be shocked at just what such a thing reads like. It actually has the same appearance as every other law, but for them it's somewhat like a child's first exposure to what grown-ups look like naked. All laws are written the same way; multiple references to other existing statutes, etc., and language that appears very strong and imposing.

Well if someone here is an expert on constitutional law, and has read this bill in full-please enlighten us on the details. Otherwise admit that you have NO IDEA what this bill actually proposes. I sure don't. Why are they trying to rush it through congress before anyone can read it? Is it really unconstitutional? Or is it fully constitutional but so poorly implemented that it will end up doing nothing towards stopping piracy? Who knows? If it is too flawed to have any effect on piracy why would you want congress to pass it as is instead of debate it and make changes?

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 01:13

All I know is, if people made even one tenth of the fuss about laws concerning personal choice issues as they are making about this law, we might have about 2 million fewer citizens wasting away in our prisons. But the media have done their job well. They got people to look the other way as the US Constitution was being recycled into the official toilet paper of the the Capitol Building, the White House, and the Supreme Court Building as they minimum-sentenced away 95% of any discretionary capacity for all judges, and life-sentenced away frivolous notions of right to privacy.

People certainly made a lot of fuss about that, but most people (including members of congress) are easily bullied into saying "I support this bill, even though I haven't read it and don't understand it or its implications, because someone said it fights crime/terrorism"

[willowhaus]

Edvaard wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 21:22

In the example of youtube via. PSW; Use your imagination, or good sense, or whatever, to figure out that at least a few tens of thousands of sites have (much) greater volume of traffic than PSW, many more references to YT within their sites, etc. and then realize what a waste of time the whole exercise is to begin with, when shutting down YT eliminates opportunity for such "reference infractions" by any other site. Considering the limited budget that every agency has, which do you think they'll choose? Going after several hundred thousand large and small and very small sites, or one site that fixes the whole problem?

You're forgetting one very important thing: what is the likelihood of making an example of a site like PSW, who does not have the financial strength of a YouTube? Google is a VERY large company, with VERY deep pockets - do you honestly think that  the AG, with their 'limited budget', is going to go on a crusade against them over YouTube?

Look at what happened (or, more to the point, DIDN'T happen) when they went after Microsoft.

However, if they needed to look like they were actually doing something about the problem...what's really going to stop them from taking aim at easy pickings like PSW?

[maarvold]

Edvaard wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 20:30

...a number of people in this industry apparently do not consider IP/copyrighted-content theft an actual crime...

Interesting the way Sean Parker (Napster) was portrayed in the film "The Social Network".  He is, or at least was, certainly a force representing a popular school of thought "in this industry".  Not that it is a school of thought I would endorse.  

[Hank Alrich]

Dominick wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 18:08

Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 17:15 Dominick wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 16:33 http://www.eff.org/coica Pro piracy propaganda. Bill Are you really that blind? Read the proposed bill and consider the implications.

How likely are we to fix anything if we suggest we could fix something by touting the passage of legislation we have not even read? This train of "thought" is barreling down an irrational track, headed for disaster.

[Hank Alrich]

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 19:35

Bill_Urick wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 18:27 Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 30 September 2010 15:45 Bill, Have you read the actual legislation as proposed?  I have not and remain uneasy about laws rushed through like this on any topic.  Little clauses get inserted that subvert the original intent all the time. Except, of course, if the legislation applies to health care. In that case it must be passed immediately...so we can find out what's in the bill. Apparently that's the only way anything can be passed any more. The issues at hand have exceeded the complexity that can be understood by most politicians and voters, the result is predictable.  This system was not designed for the 21st century.  It's a miracle it's worked this long. We might be better off with a simple coin toss.  It would produce a comparable outcome, completely level the playing field and would only cost a quarter.  We could spend the money saved to individually home-school every child in the country.   Then the voters might understand what they are voting on. As long as voters are "informed" solely by political advertising on TV we're screwed.

Amen. Having home-schooled five of our own, while my property taxes helped support the local school system, and with my musical children, I regularly played fund raisers for the music department, I am honored to see how the children have learned how to learn. The value in that vastly exceeds the value of recitation of false history and the inculcation of mass market identities tied to commercialism.

[Samc]

Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 14:12

The mongoose thing is a red herring, just set to type for the purpose of talking AROUND the actual issue. You have been used, distracted and used to deflect the seriousness of the issue away from a serious conversation and towards a cartoon exchange. I did it too, so welcome to the clown club.

It's unfortunate that you see it like this, if we don't learn from our past mistakes then we are idiots.  The lesson that we should be careful to not create a bigger problem than the one we're trying to solve is always advised especially when the stakes are so high and we don't have all the answers...

After more than 100 years after it was created, this very superficial cartoon (Mongoose problem) is still costing all the countries involved untold millions of dollars per year, not to mention the fact that they are ridding the world of many indigenous species and have totally disrupted the balance of nature in these countries.

I wish I had all the answers too...

[Edvaard]

Samc wrote on Sun, 10 October 2010 09:06

Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 14:12 The mongoose thing is a red herring, just set to type for the purpose of talking AROUND the actual issue. You have been used, distracted and used to deflect the seriousness of the issue away from a serious conversation and towards a cartoon exchange. I did it too, so welcome to the clown club. It's unfortunate that you see it like this, if we don't learn from our past mistakes then we are idiots.  The lesson that we should be careful to not create a bigger problem than the one we're trying to solve is always advised especially when the stakes are so high and we don't have all the answers... After more than 100 years after it was created, this very superficial cartoon (Mongoose problem) is still costing all the countries involved untold millions of dollars per year, not to mention the fact that they are ridding the world of many indigenous species and have totally disrupted the balance of nature in these countries. I wish I had all the answers too...

The problem with mongoose story is that it's not a proper analogy at all.


For one, a single law is easy to track down, unlike an indeterminate but numerous population of animals in the wild, and either changed or removed. It's been done numerous times over the years. Some laws that work out not quite as intended are often times self-adjusted by the agency enforcing it, and in any case rarely is every single provision in a law pursued to the fullest extent.

If the intention of the analogy is to imply some out of control propagation concern, e.g. this one law being used as a springboard for further legislation, etc. I don't see it in what I'm reading. Everything in it is already in place in other laws, e.g. child porn, etc. This law in fact has no "implications" either in the way of charting yet unexplored territory for a new class or mode of enforcement or in the way of constitutional precedent that does not already exist in numerous other laws. In other words many laws on the books for years go far beyond this proposed law regarding any enforcement or constitutional concerns. It would not be "adding to" but rather falling well within existing precedent.

Hank Alrich wrote on Sat, 09 October 2010 19:14

How likely are we to fix anything if we suggest we could fix something by touting the passage of legislation we have not even read? This train of "thought" is barreling down an irrational track, headed for disaster.

Probably the same odds we have of fixing anything by arguing against passage of legislation we have not even read, barreling down the same irrational track from the opposite direction.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

A model of brevity, compared to most legislation.

Takes ten minutes to read twice.


And no, I do not have at hand the other laws already in place that go far beyond this one in every category, too many years since I read them, but this is about the most 'lightweight' I've seen. Then again, compared to the minimum sentencing and recent homeland security laws, what isn't?

[Edvaard]

To add to the above:

This proposed legislation is not creating a new category of crime, and does not "outlaw" anything heretofore legal. The legislation applies an already existing internet enforcement tool specifically against crimes of IP and copyright theft or infringement.